[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] platform/x86: intel_cht_int33fe: Start using software nodes
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 05:31:32PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2/19/19 12:59 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > The software nodes support node hierarchy. By using them with fusb302
> > we can add a separate fwnode also for the USB connector as a child of
> > fusb302. We can then use the "standard" USB connector device
> > properties with the connector node, and stop using the deprecated
> > fusb302 specific properties.
> >
> > Since the goal is to ultimately move to the software node API from the
> > old device property API, converting also max17047 in this series.
> >
> > If you test this now (before v5.1-rc1 is out), then the series depends
> > Greg's latest usb-next:
> >
> >
> > and on a patch in Rafael's latest linux-next branch:
> >
> Interesting series, I like the direction this is heading in.
> Question, I currently have this hack to test DP over Type-C on the
> GPD-pocket / GPD-win:
> Do this properly we need to add alt-modes support for usb-c-connector nodes to:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/connector/usb-connector.txt

Yes, this is a topic I wanted to talk about.

> Do you have any ideas for what the binding this should look like, we need to
> specify a svid, mode and vdo tripple in this case. Maybe use an u32 array
> with 3, 6, 9, ... entries depending on how much alt-modes the fwnode needs to
> specify ?

My idea was to use sub-nodes, i.e. every alt mode a connector supports
would need to have its own child node under the connector node. Those
sub-nodes could then have a device property "svid" and another device
property "vdo", etc.

I think that approach would be OK in DT, and we can now support it also
with the software nodes, and even in ACPI there are now something
called "data nodes" which can be used for this purpose.

There are some questions though. That "USB connector" node description
relies on OF graph, so should we just extend those "endpoint" nodes
(which are sub-nodes), or should be still have dedicated sub-nodes for
the alt modes? I think we may need dedicated nodes for the alt modes
in any case if we choose to use this approach.



 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-25 16:49    [W:0.152 / U:4.156 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site